|
|
Post by Titus Blackbriar on Nov 7, 2018 1:39:00 GMT 1
I didn't know 'going mad from syphilis' was on the ballot. I believe that was on the last election. |
|
|
|
Post by Ashara Starkwood on Nov 7, 2018 1:51:34 GMT 1
no, that was "went mad"; similar, but past tense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cleyton Bolton on Nov 7, 2018 2:42:48 GMT 1
Minor details, so far at least in the early part seems a "blue wave" has taken over, if the rebloodlicans lose the senate to the democribs, impeachment might go through lol. I mean republican impeached a president for a BJ, but won't do it for the current one lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Septon Abelar on Nov 7, 2018 5:05:48 GMT 1
Minor details, so far at least in the early part seems a "blue wave" has taken over, if the rebloodlicans lose the senate to the democribs, impeachment might go through lol. I mean republican impeached a president for a BJ, but won't do it for the current one lol I think you mean the House, rather than the Senate. They could symbolically impeach, but only the Senate has the power to remove officials following impeachment. The more important power that the Democrats appear to have won tonight is the power to subpoena and launch investigations--they can likely get Trump's tax returns, for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by Alliser on Nov 7, 2018 5:31:50 GMT 1
Yeah, over all it was let's wave and more a laping on the lake shore.
I think they lost ground in the Senate an for governor's houses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Balon Blackbriar on Nov 7, 2018 5:47:50 GMT 1
The Senate is the more important of the two as they vote for all of the president's appointees (Ginsburg better pray she makes it another two years). In that regard there was a "red wave" as they will pick up four or five seats.
Interesting note: Every Democrat senator in a red state that voted against Kavanaugh lost*. The only Democrat from a red state that voted for Kavanaugh won. Will see in the morning how the Governor races ended up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Septon Abelar on Nov 7, 2018 6:11:04 GMT 1
It was a very bad map for the Democrats to defend in the Senate, as all of the seats up for election were last up during the 2012 Democratic wave. Hence getting massacred in a bunch of red states that they barely won six years ago. Also, the Republicans have benefited from appealing to people in low-population states, which are still worth just as many senators as the bigger states--this allows them to lose the national popular vote and still retain national power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alliser on Nov 7, 2018 6:16:34 GMT 1
Because representative democracy FTW!
I kind of wish Puerto Rico would finally join us as a state instead of just a common wealth. They have a higher population then the last like 5 states yet they don't get representation because they do not want to commit to statehood.
But considering how much the US has dicked them around I guess it's little wonder that they are leery of us
|
|
|
|
Post by Ashara Starkwood on Nov 7, 2018 6:38:45 GMT 1
I've always felt that the territories should get couple of senators communally; I would say just 1 but then the VP will lose the one role of significance they have - breaking ties in the senate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Balon Blackbriar on Nov 7, 2018 6:46:26 GMT 1
My friend in Puerto Rico says 1/3 want statehood, 1/3 want independence, 1/3 like it how it is. So there ya go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Father on Nov 7, 2018 11:42:35 GMT 1
Odds are that the Republicans would do whatever they can to block Puerto Rico and other places (Washington DC) becoming states. There's also been talk about splitting up California.
What was it, 9 Republican seats and 26 Democratic ones in the Senate that was being up for election? I'm guessing the Dems probably will have much better chances two years from now. For the senate at least. For the presidential elections it looks like every Democrat is coming crawling out from the rocks for the primaries. Right now I think I'd be rooting for a Michael Bloomberg bid, someone like Elizabeth Warren would be Trump's dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daeron Wildfyre on Nov 7, 2018 14:39:13 GMT 1
A good number of Democrats didn’t want Puerto Rican statehood as it’s a very socially conservative territory that isn’t super friendly to abortion rights or gay rights.
Some tough losses for Dems yesterday, but some really nice wins too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Father on Nov 7, 2018 14:40:26 GMT 1
But Puerto Rico would still send two Democrats to the Senate most likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Septon Abelar on Nov 8, 2018 0:41:29 GMT 1
But Puerto Rico would still send two Democrats to the Senate most likely. It's hard to predict. The Republican party is surprisingly strong there. |
|
|
|
Post by Ashara Starkwood on Nov 8, 2018 0:54:50 GMT 1
There are other dominant political parties in PR, I don't think any of them align with the Rs or the Ds perfectly; however I would expect that if it became a state that would change - both major parties would invest a bunch of money into trying to claim those two new senate seats - likely plucking established local candidates from the other parties with the promise of financial backing. Really, we need to ditch the antiquated First Past the Post election system with something that actually promotes a diversity of ideas and parties instead of encouraging there to only be two with any real power. I highly recommend this little web 'game' that explores and explains voting systems and their strengths and flaws. To Build a Better BallotAlso on that site is this great little 'game' about trust. It sheds an interesting light on what's happening in this game. The Evolution of Trust |
|
